Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[SeannyM]

It was an open-air Methodist chapel, and it was Methodist Church property, hence they sued a Methodist church. Do I need to point out the words of the judge, too? That religious freedom needs to be set aside for the sake of progress? He openly admitted that it was a violation of religious freedom and did it anyway.

The article you posted earlier said that it was a beach rental property. Being a religious organization doesn’t immunize you from civil proceedings if you own assets in the public market. If the Catholic Church owns a hospital, and they commit malpractice, they are still liable for that… just being a church doesn’t mean that you cannot be sued. You cannot be sued for your religious teachings and practices, but you can be sued for violating laws once you branch out into public accommodations.

 

[rossum]

It was an open-air Methodist chapel, and it was Methodist Church property, hence they sued a Methodist church.

It was not a chapel, it was a"Pavilion" and it could be hired for secular events. Furthermore the Methodists had applied for tax relief on the grounds that the Pavilion was open to the public and not reserved solely for religious events:

In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).

Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation. Following the hearing the Department approved the tax exemption on certain conditions, one of which required the property to be open for public use on an equal basis. Respondent renewed this application every three years as required, and the tax exemption was continued through the period in question here with the same condition for equal access. Following the events that led to this proceeding, respondent applied once again to renew its real-estate tax exemption. The Department denied that portion of the exemption relating to the Pavilion, concluding that the Pavilion was not available on an equal basis. This is the substance of the record.

The LAD makes it unlawful for the owner of “any place of public accommodation” to refuse its use on the basis of sexual orientation or civil-union status, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f).

Do I need to point out the words of the judge, too?

No need to, I quoted them above, from the judgement you linked to.

1. The premises were not a church, but a Pavilion owned by a church.
2. The Pavilion was available for rent for both religious and non-religious events.
3. The owners had legally declared that the Pavilion was run on an “equal access” basis.

How many Catholic Churches meet all those criteria? This case was very much decided on the specifics of this particular location.

rossum

 

[Midwest88]

So call me an activist all you wish, but until you truly experience the pain of being a second class citizen, don’t presume to tell me I’m selfish, or incapable of benefitting society, because that’s simply not true.

Did you seriously refer to yourself, and other gays, as second class citizens? Good grief.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The fallout from Judge Shelby’s ‘ruling’ overturning Utah’s Marriage Amendment is only just beginning.

Yesterday, Bruce Parker of The Daily Caller penned an important piece, “Utah’s lesson for the other 33 pro-marriage states.” In it he wrote:

In a 53-page ruling, which could best be described as a work of judicial fiction, District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby began by conceding that marriage law is “the province of the states,” but he proceeded to void Utah’s marriage law in a naked power grab that he admitted was not within his purview to do.

By the end of the ruling, Judge Shelby had overturned Utah’s definition of marriage by judicial fiat and replaced it with the one provided by LGBT activists.

The event was not an isolated incident. Within days, a federal district court judge in Ohio issued a similarly contrived judgment against that state’s constitutional marriage amendment. Moreover, according to the ACLU’s web site, copycat acts of judicial legislating are underway in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and a dozen other red states, as part of the group’s national “Out for Freedom” campaign against state sovereignty [emphasis added].

What does this brazen usurpation of power and rejection of the democratic process mean for the other 30-plus states with amendments or laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

First and foremost, state Governors and Attorneys General must reject these illegitimate rulings, and the people of these states must hold their elected officials accountable to do so. Parker writes, “Indeed, when the two-thirds of Utahns who supported the state’s marriage law awaken from their holiday festivities and realize their constitutional sovereignty has been stolen, the phones at the offices of the governor and attorney general should ring off the hook” [emphasis added].

Parker concludes by quoting NOM president Brian Brown saying, “Our country has seen illegitimate decisions before, going back to Dred Scott. And in the past, when a court has fallen so far afoul of the Constitution itself, executives have had to stand up and say no.”

The people of Utah are up-in-arms and demanding action, to their credit. The sad reality is that, if the ACLU is to be taken at their word, it looks like the voters in 30 other states should start preparing their own plans to fight back in the near future as well.

See more at: nomblog.com/#sthash.EveFSeP3.dpuf

 

[gilliam]

It isn’t a power grab by the judges right now. It is taking the decision of the SCOTUS this last summer to its logical conclusion. The fault isn’t with the current judges.

 

[Farsight001]

The article you posted earlier said that it was a beach rental property. Being a religious organization doesn’t immunize you from civil proceedings if you own assets in the public market.

And this is where the discrimination against Christians comes in - we cannot operate businesses without being forced by the government to violate our faith, which basically means we cannot operate businesses period, which is religious discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

 

[gilliam]

The Utah Attorney General’s Office officially filed a request for stay with the United States Supreme Court today.
A copy of the filing is available here: Application for Stay

Well, I don’t see the SCOTUS ruling on this until Thursday or Friday now.

 

[SeannyM]

And this is where the discrimination against Christians comes in - we cannot operate businesses without being forced by the government to violate our faith, which basically means we cannot operate businesses period, which is religious discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

So your right to discriminate based on faith trumps everyone else’s rights to not be denied public accommodation? That’s simply not true. I know you don’t like that answer, but in many places, that’s the law. Your right to freely practice your religion can almost never be limited in your religious environment… but when you begin operating public accommodations other peoples’ rights have to come into play as well. In the public market, your freedom of religion no longer trumps every other right people maintain. That’s why in a church you can deny someone a job because of a gender (aka priesthood), in a church you can deny someone a service like a wedding based on their religion (aka inter-faith weddings). But this right stops trumping the rights of others as soon as you open a public accommodation. You can no longer deny someone employment because of their gender, or refuse service because of someone’s religion… In many places, that rule is also applied to gay people. So sure, your freedom of religion is limited. That doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Every freedom has limits, and in cases where the law provides these protections to gay people, society has decided that your freedom of religion takes a back seat to their freedom against discrimination… And in your church, their freedom against discrimination takes a back seat to your freedom of religion. In a pluralistic society, sometimes a little give and take is necessary. I get that you don’t like that, but that’s just how it is.

 

[Farsight001]

So your right to discriminate based on faith trumps everyone else’s rights to not be denied public accommodation? That’s simply not true. I know you don’t like that answer, but in many places, that’s the law. Your right to freely practice your religion can almost never be limited in your religious environment… but when you begin operating public accommodations other peoples’ rights have to come into play as well. In the public market, your freedom of religion no longer trumps every other right people maintain. That’s why in a church you can deny someone a job because of a gender (aka priesthood), in a church you can deny someone a service like a wedding based on their religion (aka inter-faith weddings). But this right stops trumping the rights of others as soon as you open a public accommodation. You can no longer deny someone employment because of their gender, or refuse service because of someone’s religion… In many places, that rule is also applied to gay people. So sure, your freedom of religion is limited. That doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Every freedom has limits, and in cases where the law provides these protections to gay people, society has decided that your freedom of religion takes a back seat to their freedom against discrimination… And in your church, their freedom against discrimination takes a back seat to your freedom of religion. In a pluralistic society, sometimes a little give and take is necessary. I get that you don’t like that, but that’s just how it is.

We’ve been over this before. Look at the choices laid out for the two groups here. One group is told “you can still have your wedding, just somewhere else”. The other group is being told “if you want to follow your faith, you have to shut down your business”

And you think the Methodists here are the ones with more freedom? Get real!

 

[gilliam]

UPDATE 5:14 p.m. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has asked for a response to the Utah application; it is due by noon on Friday. There thus will be no action on this pending that filing.

 

[SeannyM]

We’ve been over this before. Look at the choices laid out for the two groups here. One group is told “you can still have your wedding, just somewhere else”. The other group is being told “if you want to follow your faith, you have to shut down your business”

And you think the Methodists here are the ones with more freedom? Get real!

I’m not saying that they are the ones with more freedom… I’m saying that the right against discrimination trumps the freedom of religion in the public accommodation. Just like the right to not hire females. When there are two competing rights, one of them has to give… inside the church, the right against discrimination gives in and is trumped by freedom of religion. Outside of a church environment you cannot deny a job to someone based on their gender or religion… And in some places sexual orientation is in that list of protected classes. This is not a violation of the constitution…. unless you believe that laws against refusing service based on gender, religion, or race are unconstitutional.

Either way, that’s not what this thread is about, so before the moderator shuts it down (since he’s warned us to stay on topic numerous times) I’m going to stop commenting. If you want to start a thread about this case, then I’ll gladly continue the chat!

 

[SuperLuigi]

Perhaps from an official Roman Catholic point of view, but there are other sects of Christianity and sects of other religions which disagree.

And we should recognize and subsidize that because???

 

[SuperLuigi]

Kolasinski uses the fertility argument, yet he fails to argue for the automatic divorce of all women past their menopause.

Actually, he covers it by noting that “it would be too costly for the states to ban marriage based on infertility because it would require fertility tests”.

That shows that he is not sincere in his argument.

No it doesn’t.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And this is where the discrimination against Christians comes in - we cannot operate businesses without being forced by the government to violate our faith, which basically means we cannot operate businesses period, which is religious discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

:clapping:

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m saying that the right against discrimination trumps the freedom of religion in the public accommodation.

There is no “right against discrimination”. The American left needs to stop making up “rights” just to further their own selfish agenda.

Laws by their very nature discriminate and you discriminate when you choose one product over another at the grocery store.

 

[LisaA]

I’m not saying that they are the ones with more freedom… I’m saying that the right against discrimination trumps the freedom of religion in the public accommodation. Just like the right to not hire females. When there are two competing rights, one of them has to give… inside the church, the right against discrimination gives in and is trumped by freedom of religion. Outside of a church environment you cannot deny a job to someone based on their gender or religion… And in some places sexual orientation is in that list of protected classes. This is not a violation of the constitution…. unless you believe that laws against refusing service based on gender, religion, or race are unconstitutional.

Either way, that’s not what this thread is about, so before the moderator shuts it down (since he’s warned us to stay on topic numerous times) I’m going to stop commenting. If you want to start a thread about this case, then I’ll gladly continue the chat!

Two problems you mistake freedom of religion for freedom of worship which means you are only “safe” within the walls of your church but once you walk out the door, you give up all freedom to practice your faith., This is wrong and has been found so in numerous cases. You cannot force a Jewish deli to provide you a ham sandwich, just because you want one. In fact one cannot force an incarcerated person to eat food or engage in practices against their religious faith.

The public accommodation laws do bump up against freedom of religion and the danger is that this term is being expanded by the courts. If a church allows the public to enter, as they do, will they eventually be forced to provide the same services to gay couples? I can see this in the future. If gays are willing to sue a business over a cake, how much more significant is the cause of receiving the sacrament of marriage?

And yes this is on topic because state or federal recognition of gay “marriage” will result in a myriad of problems and create fertile ground for lawsuits. I believe the bakery/photography/B&B cases are but testing grounds with a clear full scale invasion of all facets of religious life in the future. I wish I could attribute goodwill and fairness to these actions but I consider them shots across the bow so to speak.

Lisa

 

[Farsight001]

I’m not saying that they are the ones with more freedom… I’m saying that the right against discrimination trumps the freedom of religion in the public accommodation.

But denying a person freedom of religion IS discrimination.

And if you say someone’s rights MUST give, then compare the two scenarios as I suggested before and tell me which one you think is more fair

1. The Church retains the right to refuse to allow a gay couple to get married on their property. The gay couple goes somewhere else to get married, gets marrried, lives happily ever after, everyone’s happy.

2)The church loses the right to refuse to allow a gay couple to get married on their property. The gay couple gets married, lives happily ever after. The church is essentially forced to close by law. Only the gay couple is happy.

And yet here you are trying to convince people that the better choice is the one where half those involved don’t ultimately get what they want, when there is in fact an option where both parties do get where they want? Again, get real.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

1. Inherent refers to something that is more than a personality trait or a behavior that manifests the personality trait. The reality is that homosexuals have gained status for a behavior that is self reported, changeable, and frankly unnatural from a biological point of view. It is truly absurd. Even more absurd is CELEBRATING this behavior.
2. Homosexuals have created a “class” out of a behavior. This is not the same as a “class” that refers to gender, racial characteristics, or even detrimental results from a drug or environmental catastrophe such as with a class action lawsuit. Homosexuals expect that their sexual behavior to be considered as intrinsic as their gender. Patently absurd.
3. I agree that homosexual behavior has become more acceptable as a result of changing sexual mores in this and other countries. But to call it “progress” is to presume that this is a POSITIVE change. If we look at the chaos resulting from these changes resulting in more children in poverty, diseases (STDs are epidemic, even among teens), and the hideous slaughter of millions of unborn babies, I think that is easily disputed.
4. The cat may be put back in the bag. We need only to look to Rome which sadly predicts the continuing downward spiral of our country. Child sacrifice, using of boys for homosexual slaves, gladiators, wild animals allowed to kill people, along with rampant debauchery among certain classes is no longer practiced in Italy (much less in America) and we can thank Christianity for the taming of these perverted behaviors.
5. We can thank the Left which has a stranglehold on much of the media for the false image of all sorts of sexual perversion and abberant behavior. Entertain the masses and you can do anything while they are distracted.

Lisa

 

[epan]

1. Inherent refers to something that is more than a personality trait or a behavior that manifests the personality trait. The reality is that homosexuals have gained status for a behavior that is self reported, changeable, and frankly unnatural from a biological point of view. It is truly absurd. Even more absurd is CELEBRATING this behavior.
2. Homosexuals have created a “class” out of a behavior. This is not the same as a “class” that refers to gender, racial characteristics, or even detrimental results from a drug or environmental catastrophe such as with a class action lawsuit. Homosexuals expect that their sexual behavior to be considered as intrinsic as their gender. Patently absurd.
3. I agree that homosexual behavior has become more acceptable as a result of changing sexual mores in this and other countries. But to call it “progress” is to presume that this is a POSITIVE change. If we look at the chaos resulting from these changes resulting in more children in poverty, diseases (STDs are epidemic, even among teens), and the hideous slaughter of millions of unborn babies, I think that is easily disputed.
4. The cat may be put back in the bag. We need only to look to Rome which sadly predicts the continuing downward spiral of our country. Child sacrifice, using of boys for homosexual slaves, gladiators, wild animals allowed to kill people, along with rampant debauchery among certain classes is no longer practiced in Italy (much less in America) and we can thank Christianity for the taming of these perverted behaviors.
5. We can thank the Left which has a stranglehold on much of the media for the false image of all sorts of sexual perversion and abberant behavior. Entertain the masses and you can do anything while they are distracted.

Lisa

You appear to be obviously wrong on all but one of your points. I guess we just disagree. Good luck with your ideas.

 

[epan]

But denying a person freedom of religion IS discrimination.

And if you say someone’s rights MUST give, then compare the two scenarios as I suggested before and tell me which one you think is more fair

1. The Church retains the right to refuse to allow a gay couple to get married on their property. The gay couple goes somewhere else to get married, gets marrried, lives happily ever after, everyone’s happy.

2)The church loses the right to refuse to allow a gay couple to get married on their property. The gay couple gets married, lives happily ever after. The church is essentially forced to close by law. Only the gay couple is happy.

And yet here you are trying to convince people that the better choice is the one where half those involved don’t ultimately get what they want, when there is in fact an option where both parties do get where they want? Again, get real.

It is a balancing act. On the topic of gay marriage, as long as no religious group is required to perform such marriages, then no infringement has occurred.

As with all civil rights issues, the argument that accommodating rights by a business, or in other non-religious matters, is a matter of religious freedom, is considered to be bogus, and thinly disguised bigotry.

So, if same sex marriage is a civil right, then refusing to accommodate such a marriage by a florist, hotel, etc… is not a religious freedom issue. This would also be true for a mixed race marriage, for example. This is where Catholic adoption services confused themselves. There is a clear distinction which is sometimes missed due to the emotion surrounding the issue, at times.